Respect

The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) told journalists that there had been a Cabinet Committee on ‘respect’ which had been chaired by the Prime Minister, and attended by Charles Clarke, David Milliband, Tessa Jowell, Peter Goldsmith and Lord Falconer from the Cabinet. Other Ministers including Jackie Smith and Hazel Blears also attended. They had discussed how Whitehall departments would cooperate and coordinate on such issues as school discipline, binge drinking, parenting, dealing with noisy neighbourhoods and anti-social behaviour.

Yes well the prospect of that lot sitting round the table saying ‘Yo, respec’, man’ to each other is hilarious in itself. Let alone the concept that any of them have shown any respect at all for the poor benighted UK population.

What are they proposing, that Respect be somehow imposed by legislation? Complete craziness. Just for openers, anyone care to put up a legal definition of Respect and how that is manifested?

As always, Respect is earned, it is not a legal requirement. And I have nothing but Contempt for such stupidity.

Wouldn’t it be lovely if these heavyweights had all met up to look at the root causes of a lot of these problems. Sad that they actually didn’t (or couldn’t, more accurately), but I find it pays not to expect too much…

On Election Night, I was with Ali G all the way…. If we had a better example from the government of this elusive animal "respect",ie fewer lies and more genuine governance, there would be less need for young people to go out and binge, cause havoc etc. It’s a lasting legacy of the Tory years – everyone trod on everyone else’s face to worship at the altar of Mammon; and, sadly, little has been done to change that attitude in the shaping of policies ever since. Now that the expectations of that era are found to be empty and worthless, the younger – and not-so-younger! generation is feeling cheated and so they are angry. Respect allows for mistakes, as long as they are (ah-ha!)owned up to and acted upon. Some hope, eh…

auntyq –
"…a lasting legacy of the Tory years…
This is a common misconception of the historically ignorant. It took us 18 "Tory Years" to crawl out of the filthy, corrupt cesspit of socialism. Those "Tory Years" which you admonish helped sweep away the obscene mentality that everyone was owed a living by the "wealthy". The "wealthy" are only those poor schmucks who CREATE WEALTH for the spongers and bludgers, to steal through "progressive" taxation and collectivist claptrap.

"Respect" for those who have the gumption to get off their behinds and DO something as opposed to those who sit about whinging how hard-done-by they are, might be a good start.

we suggest you read:

The Rise of Political Lying

as an eye-opener into why the current administration is an illegitimate government.

Surely the political ideology of the guilty party is largely immaterial; they all abuse the system and spend a large part of their time introducing "reforms" which aren’t actually reforms at all but tools to help them abuse the system with more freedom and less chance of being called to account.

A bit of plain speaking here would help – let’s not hide behind innuendo and hyperbole. The higher up the chain you go, the less honesty you can expect. We’re talking about politicians here; professional liars and manipulators, one and all. And if they aren’t actually liars, they’re just as guilty as the liars by dint of the fact they do nothing to stop them as long as their own nest is nicely feathered.

I can see what Auntyq is saying but I agree with Frederick up to a point – that it wasn’t JUST the Tories to blame. But I do also think that once someone gets to Cabinet level or higher, political ideology becomes pretty meaningless (they’re all just keeping the status quo for the next lot). Look at how Conservative "New Labour" has become on some issues. Therefore it doesn’t matter whether it was the Tories or Labour to blame; I think what Auntyq is saying is that it’s peoples general disillusionment with the whole political process and the fact that the politicians themselves refuse to accept real responsibility for their actions which is partly responsible for large chunks of our society effectively no longer caring for the society they live in. They feel as though they are nothing more than tax-fodder – and they’re absolutely right; they perceive that their opinion doesn’t matter except at election time – and again, they’re spot on; they see politicians sitting in their ivory towers making pronouncements all day long about how people should live (as long as they aren’t affected) and they think "bollocks to this" – and once again look at the examples set by the people at the supposed top of the ladder. With examples like those set by Bliar, Blunkett, Hughes, Short, etc etc, how can anyone expect anything less than antisocial behaviour from everyone in the country?

And one more thing while we’re talking about examples and taking responsibility for our actions; granted, antisocial behaviour pisses people off and inconveniences them – it rarely leads to the deaths of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands). And if our "government" cannot accept responsibility for their illegal actions in invading Iraq – they could, after all, make use of the putative "Special Relationship" with the US to insist on a proper full bodycount being compiled, why and how should they expect anyone else to behave any differently? I suspect the answer to that lies in the fact that the PM and his cabinet cronies are as far removed from everyday life as lived by everyday people as it is possible to be; Marie Antoinette summed it up perfectly when she said "let them eat cake"…

Even Marie Antoinette was well meaning in her "cake" suggestion. From the Loire, MA was aware of the capacity of the country folk to produce enough "brioche" (the cake-like bread of the Loire region) to feed the starving people of Paris.

Her GOOD intentions were deliberately mis-quoted and mis-used by lying politicians in Paris to build the case for war/revolution and her execution.

Sound familiar? Maybe vis-a-vis Iraq war and the death of Dr David Kelly?